Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Confused Ape]

You're the one who thinks one dictionary says it all, and that the terms are mutually exclusive.

From Collins:

atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm )
Definitions
noun
rejection of belief in God or gods

I was replying to what Aardverk said in Post 82 of this topic.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Ninth edition): "ATHEISM - the theory or belief that god does not exist"

I'm more of a Collins Dictionary definition atheist - I don't believe in God or gods because there's no concrete scientific proof that God or gods exist. I'm not a Concise Oxford Dictionary definition atheist because I have no theory or belief that God or gods don't exist because there's no concrete scientific proof of their non existence.

Which really goes back to what I said in my earlier post - You're going to get different answers depending on whether the atheist concerned is going by the dictionary definition, the scale of theistic probability or how some philosopher defines atheism. The dictionary definition could cover whichever dictionary an atheist chooses to go by.

As for Richard Dawkins, his self description could be interpreted as agnostic atheist so he'd probably get annoyed if someone insisted he was a common or garden agnostic -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism...gnosticism

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[20]

I suppose I could class myself as an agnostic atheist but then, I could also be a bit of a spiritual agnostic.

Spiritual agnosticism
The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic might say "It doesn't matter which religion you might follow, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."[23]

Some scientists take the view that universal ethics have a biological basis and are arguing over whether or not it has anything to do with mirror neurons.

Following the link to spiritual agnosticism ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_agnosticism

Spiritual agnostics are different than theist agnostics in that they do not necessarily lean towards a belief in God, but may or may not have faith, or hope that God exists.[3] In either case, the spiritual agnostic sees the question as largely academic. The spiritual agnostic is unconcerned with the question of whether when they pray they are communicating with God or accessing a Jungian archetype

I use Jungian psychology to explore the archetypal world but I don't pray to anything.

I think there's plenty of evidence that humans can have subjective experiences which they interpret as contacts with God or gods. Some neuroscientists are investigating what happens in people's brains when they have this kind of experience. I've had some odd, subjective experiences which many people would interpret as seeing ghosts and nature spirits etc. although I interpret them as the result of my brain having a hiccup. Does this make me something of an ignostic?

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed.

I think I'll just stick to calling myself an atheist and be very careful when wording posts so I don't give the impression I know for a fact that deities don't exist. It will make life a lot simpler.